The Structure of Bull-Free Perfect Graphs

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "The Structure of Bull-Free Perfect Graphs"

Transcription

1 The Structure of Bull-Free Perfect Graphs Maria Chudnovsky and Irena Penev Columbia University, New York, NY USA May 18, 2012 Abstract The bull is a graph consisting of a triangle and two vertex-disjoint pendant edges. A graph is called bull-free if no induced subgraph of it is a bull. A graph G is perfect if for every induced subgraph H of G, the chromatic number of H equals the size of the largest complete subgraph of H. This paper describes the structure of all bull-free perfect graphs. 1 Introduction Unless stated otherwise, all graphs in this paper are simple and finite. Given a graph G, we denote by V G the vertex set of G, and by E G the edge set of G; we sometimes write G = (V G, E G ). A clique in G is a set of pairwise adjacent vertices of G, and a stable set in G is a set of pairwise non-adjacent vertices of G. The clique number of G, written ω(g), is the maximum number of vertices in a clique in G. A coloring of G is a partition of V G into stable sets. The chromatic number of a graph G, written χ(g), is the minimum number of stable sets needed to partition V G. A graph G is said to be perfect if for every induced subgraph H of G, χ(h) = ω(h). Given a graph G, the complement of G, written G, is the graph on the vertex set V G such that for all distinct u, v V G, u is adjacent to v in G if and only if u is non-adjacent to v in G. A hole in G is an induced cycle of length at least four in G. An anti-hole in G is an induced subgraph of G whose complement is a hole in G. An odd hole (respectively: odd anti-hole) is a hole (respectively: anti-hole) with an odd number of vertices. Berge conjectured that a graph is perfect if and only if it contains neither odd holes nor odd anti-holes [1]. This conjecture is known as the strong perfect Partially supported by NSF grants DMS and DMS

2 graph conjecture; it was proven a few years ago [7], and it is now known as the strong perfect graph theorem. Today, graphs that contain no odd holes and no odd anti-holes are called Berge, and so the strong perfect graph theorem can be restated as saying that a graph is perfect if and only if it is Berge. Other relevant results have been the polynomial time recognition algorithm for Berge (and therefore, by the strong perfect graph theorem, perfect) graphs [6], and a polynomial time coloring algorithm for perfect graphs [12]. As the latter algorithm is based on the ellipsoid method, finding a combinatorial polynomial time coloring algorithm for perfect graphs remains an open problem. The bull is a graph with vertex set {x 1, x 2, x 3, y 1, y 2 } and edge set {x 1 x 2, x 2 x 3, x 3 x 1, x 1 y 1, x 2 y 2 }. A graph G is said to be bull-free if no induced subgraph of G is isomorphic to the bull. Bull-free graphs were originally studied in the context of perfect graphs. Many years before the strong perfect graph conjecture was proven [7], it was shown that bull-free Berge graphs were perfect [8]. Similarly, a polynomial time recognition algorithm for bull-free perfect graphs [15] was obtained long before the recognition algorithm for perfect graphs [6]. Furthermore, the class of bull-free perfect graphs is one of the subclasses of the class of perfect graphs for which a combinatorial polynomial time coloring algorithm has been constructed [10] (in fact, [10] contains a weighted coloring algorithm for bull-free perfect graphs; see also [11] and [13]). Recently, a structure theorem for bull-free graphs was obtained [2, 3, 4, 5]; in the present paper, we use the structure theorem from [2, 3, 4, 5] to derive a structure theorem for bull-free Berge graphs; by the strong perfect graph theorem [7], this is in fact a structure theorem for bull-free perfect graphs. While the structure of bull-free perfect graphs has received some attention in the past (see [8] and [11]), all previous results were decomposition theorems : they state that every bull-free perfect graph either belongs to some well-understood basic class or it can be decomposed into smaller bull-free perfect graphs in a certain useful way. However, these decompositions cannot be turned into operations that build larger graphs from smaller ones, while preserving the property of being bull-free and perfect. In this sense, the structure theorem from the present paper is stronger: it states that every bull-free perfect graph either belongs to a basic class, or it can be built from smaller bull-free perfect graph by an operation that preserves the property of being bull-free and perfect. We remark that elsewhere [14], the results of the present paper are used to obtain a combinatorial polynomial time weighted coloring algorithm for bull-free perfect graphs whose complexity is lower than that of the algorithm in [10]. One might ask whether these results could also be used as a basis for 2

3 a polynomial time recognition algorithm for bull-free perfect graphs. While it is possible that such an algorithm could be found, it seems unlikely that it would be faster than the recognition algorithm for bull-free perfect graphs from [15]; this is because the running time of the algorithm from [15] is only O(n 5 ) (where n is the number of vertices of the input graph), and since the bull contains five vertices, the obvious way to test whether a graph is bull-free already takes O(n 5 ) time. Following [2, 3, 4, 5], we consider objects called trigraphs (defined in section 2), which are a generalization of graphs. While in a graph, two distinct vertices can be either adjacent or non-adjacent, in a trigraph, there are three options: a pair of distinct vertices can be adjacent, anti-adjacent, or semi-adjacent; semi-adjacent pairs can conveniently be thought of as having undecided adjacency. While we do not define such a thing as a perfect trigraph (because we do not have a natural way to define a trigraph coloring), there is a natural way to define a bull-free trigraph and a Berge trigraph, and we do this in section 2. Our main theorem (3.4) gives the structure of all bull-free Berge trigraphs. Since graphs are simply trigraphs with no semi-adjacent pairs, this theorem is implicitly a structure theorem for bull-free Berge graphs, and therefore (by the strong perfect graph theorem) it is a structure theorem for bull-free perfect graphs. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section 3, we define elementary trigraphs, and we use a result from [2] to reduce our problem to finding the structure of all elementary bull-free Berge trigraphs. We then cite the structure theorem for elementary bull-free trigraphs from [5]; this theorem states that every bull-free trigraph G is either obtained from smaller bull-free trigraphs by substitution (this operation is defined in section 2), or G or its complement is an elementary expansion (this is defined later, in section 4) of a trigraph in one of two basic classes (classes T 1 and T 2 ). We complete section 3 by stating our main theorem (3.4), the structure theorem for all bull-free Berge trigraphs; however, we do not prove this theorem in section 3 (we only do this in section 7), and we also postpone defining certain terms used in the theorem. In section 4, we study elementary expansions. Informally, an elementary expansion of a trigraph H is the trigraph obtained by expanding some semi-adjacent pairs of H to homogeneous pairs of a certain kind (general homogeneous pairs are defined in section 2, and the two kinds that we need for elementary expansions are defined in section 4). We show that if G is an elementary expansion of a trigraph H, then G is Berge if and only if H is. In section 5, we give the definition of the class T 1 from [5] and derive the class T1 of all Berge trigraphs in T 1. In section 6, we define the class T 2 from [5], and prove that every trigraph in T 2 is Berge. Finally, in section 7, we prove our main theorem. 3

4 2 Trigraphs A trigraph G is an ordered pair (V G, θ G ) such that V G is a non-empty finite set, called the vertex set of G, and θ G : VG 2 { 1, 0, 1} is a map, called the adjacency function of G, satisfying the following: for all v V G, θ G (v, v) = 0; for all u, v V G, θ G (u, v) = θ(v, u); for all u V G, there exists at most one vertex v V G {u} such that θ G (u, v) = 0. Members of V G are called vertices of G. Let u, v V G be distinct. We say that uv is a strongly adjacent pair, or that u and v are strongly adjacent, or that u is strongly adjacent to v, or that u is a strong neighbor of v, provided that θ G (u, v) = 1. We say that uv is a strongly anti-adjacent pair, or that u and v are strongly anti-adjacent, or that u is strongly anti-adjacent to v, or that u is a strong anti-neighbor of v, provided that θ G (u, v) = 1. We say that uv is a semi-adjacent pair, or that u and v are semi-adjacent, or that u is semi-adjacent to v, provided that θ G (u, v) = 0. (Note that we do not say that a vertex w V G is semi-adjacent to itself even though θ G (w, w) = 0.) If uv is a strongly adjacent pair or a semi-adjacent pair, then we say that uv is an adjacent pair, or that u and v are adjacent, or that u is adjacent to v, or that u is a neighbor of v. If uv is a strongly anti-adjacent pair or a semi-adjacent pair, then we say that uv is an anti-adjacent pair, or that u and v are anti-adjacent, or that u is anti-adjacent to v, or that u is an antineighbor of v. Thus, if uv is a semi-adjacent pair, then uv is simultaneously an adjacent pair and an anti-adjacent pair. The endpoints of the pair uv (regardless of adjacency) are u and v. Given distinct vertices u and v of G, we do not distinguish between pairs uv and vu. However, we will sometimes need to maintain the asymmetry between the endpoints of a semi-adjacent pair uv, and in those cases, we will use the ordered pair notation and write (u, v) or (v, u), as appropriate, rather than uv. Note that every (non-empty, finite, and simple) graph can be thought of as a trigraph in a natural way: graphs are simply trigraphs with no semiadjacent pairs. The complement of a trigraph G is the trigraph G such that V G = V G and θ G = θ G ; we say that a class C of trigraphs is self-complementary provided that for every trigraph G C, we have that G C. Given a trigraph G and a non-empty set X V G, G[X] is the trigraph with vertex set X and adjacency function θ G X 2 (the restriction of θ G to X 2 ); we call G[X] the subtrigraph of G induced by X. Isomorphism between trigraphs is defined in the natural way; if trigraphs G 1 and G 2 are isomorphic, then 4

5 we write G 1 = G2. Given trigraphs G and H, we say that H is an induced subtrigraph of G (or that G contains H as an induced subtrigraph) if there exists some X V G such that H = G[X]. (However, when convenient, we relax this condition and say that H is an induced subtrigraph of G, or that G contains H as an induced subtrigraph, if there exists some X V G such that H = G[X].) Given a trigraph G and a set X V G, we denote by G X the trigraph G[V G X]; if X = {v}, then we sometimes write G v instead of G {v}. Given a trigraph G, a vertex a V G, and a set B V G {a}, we say that a is strongly complete (respectively: strongly anti-complete, complete, anticomplete) to B provided that a is strongly adjacent (respectively: strongly anti-adjacent, adjacent, anti-adjacent) to every vertex in B; we say that a is mixed on B provided that a is neither strongly complete nor strongly anti-complete to B. Given disjoint A, B V G, we say that A is strongly complete (respectively: strongly anti-complete, complete, anti-complete) to B provided that for every a A, a is strongly complete (respectively: strongly anti-complete, complete, anti-complete) to B. Given X V G, we say that X is a (strong) clique in G provided that the vertices of X are all pairwise (strongly) adjacent, and we say that X is a (strongly) stable set in G provided that the vertices of X are all pairwise (strongly) anti-adjacent. A (strong) triangle is a (strong) clique consisting of three vertices, and a (strong) triad is a (strongly) stable set consisting of three vertices. A graph Ĝ is said to be a realization of a trigraph G = (V G, θ G ) provided that the vertex set of Ĝ is V G, and for all distinct u, v V G, the following hold: if u is adjacent to v in Ĝ, then u is adjacent to v in G; if u is non-adjacent to v in Ĝ, then u is anti-adjacent to v in G. Thus, a realization of a trigraph is obtained by turning all strongly adjacent pairs into edges, all strongly anti-adjacent pairs into non-edges, and semiadjacent pairs (independently of one another) into edges or non-edges. A bull is a trigraph with vertex set {x 1, x 2, x 3, y 1, y 2 } such that {x 1, x 2, x 3 } is a triangle, y 1 is adjacent to x 1 and anti-complete to {x 2, x 3, y 2 }, and y 2 is adjacent to x 2 and anti-complete to {x 1, x 3 }. We say that a trigraph G is bull-free provided that no induced subtrigraph of G is a bull. We say that an induced subtrigraph P of a trigraph G is a path in G provided that the vertices of P can be ordered as p 0, p 1,..., p k (for some integer k 0) so that for all i, j {0,..., k}, if i j = 1 then p i p j is an adjacent pair, and if i j > 1 then p i p j is an anti-adjacent pair; we often denote such a path P by p 0 p 1... p k, and we say that P is a path from p 0 to 5

6 p k, or that P is a path between p 0 and p k. The length of a path or anti-path P is V P 1, where (consistently with our notation) V P denotes the vertex set of P. If P is a path of length k, then we also say that P is a k-edge path. An odd path is a path of odd length. We say that an induced subtrigraph H of a trigraph G is a hole (respectively: anti-hole) in G provided that the vertices of H can be ordered as h 1,..., h k (for some integer k 4) so that for all i, j {1,..., k}, if i j = 1 or i j = k 1 then h i h j is an adjacent (respectively: anti-adjacent) pair, and if 1 < i j < k 1 then h i h j is an anti-adjacent (respectively: adjacent) pair. We often denote such a hole or anti-hole by h 1 h 2... h k h 0. (We observe that H is a hole in G if and only if H is an anti-hole in G.) The length of a hole or anti-hole H is V H. If H is a hole (respectively: anti-hole) of length k, then we also say that H is a k-hole (respectively: k-anti-hole). We say that H is an odd hole (respectively: odd anti-hole) provided that H is a hole (respectively: anti-hole) of length k for some odd integer k 5. We say that a trigraph G is odd hole-free (respectively: odd anti-hole-free) provided that no induced subtrigraph of G is an odd hole (respectively: odd anti-hole). A trigraph G is Berge provided that G is both odd hole-free and odd anti-hole-free. We say that a trigraph G is bipartite provided that V G can be partitioned into (possibly empty) strongly stable sets A and B; under such circumstances, we say that G is bipartite with bipartition (A, B), and that (A, B) is a bipartition of the bipartite trigraph G. We say that a trigraph G is complementbipartite provided that G is bipartite. We say that G is complement-bipartite with bipartition (A, B), or that (A, B) is a bipartition of the complementbipartite trigraph G, provided that G is bipartite with bipartition (A, B). We observe that a trigraph G is bull-free (respectively: odd hole-free, odd anti-hole-free, Berge, bipartite, complement-bipartite) provided that every realization of G is bull-free (respectively: odd hole-free, odd anti-hole-free, Berge, bipartite, complement-bipartite). We note that bipartite and complement bipartite trigraphs are Berge. This follows from the fact that every realization of a bipartite (respectively: complement-bipartite) trigraph is a bipartite (respectively: complementbipartite) graph, and it is a well known (and easy to check) fact that bipartite and complement-bipartite graphs are Berge. We now give an easy result that will be used throughout the paper Let G be a trigraph. Then G is bull-free if and only if G is bull-free, and G is Berge if and only if G is Berge. Proof. The first claim follows from the fact that the complement of a bull 6

7 is again a bull. The second claim is immediate from the definition. Let G be a trigraph, and let Ĝ be the realization of G that satisfies the property that for all distinct u, v V G, u and v are adjacent in Ĝ if and only if θ G (u, v) 0. (Thus, Ĝ is the realization of G obtained by turning all semi-adjacent pairs of G into edges.) We then say that G is connected provided that Ĝ is connected. Let X V G. We say that G[X] is a component of G provided that Ĝ[X] is a component of Ĝ (i.e. provided that Ĝ[X] is a maximal connected induced subgraph of Ĝ). Let G be a trigraph, and let X be a proper, non-empty subset of V G. We say that X is a homogeneous set in G provided that for every v V G X, v is either strongly complete to X or strongly anti-complete to X. We say that X is a proper homogeneous set in G provided that X is a homogeneous set in G and that X 2. We say that G admits a homogeneous set decomposition provided that G contains a proper homogeneous set. We observe that if X is a homogeneous set in G, and uv is a semi-adjacent pair in G, then either u, v X or u, v V G X. Let G, G 1, and G 2 be trigraphs, and let v V G1. Assume that V G1 and V G2 are disjoint, and that v is not an endpoint of any semi-adjacent pair in G 1. We then say that G is obtained by substituting G 2 for v in G 1 provided that all of the following hold: V G = (V G1 V G2 ) {v}; G[V G1 {v}] = G 1 v; G[V G2 ] = G 2 ; for all v 1 V G1 {v} and v 2 V G2, v 1 v 2 is a strongly adjacent pair in G if v 1 v is a strongly adjacent pair in G 1, and v 1 v 2 is a strongly anti-adjacent pair in G if v 1 v is a strongly anti-adjacent pair in G 1. We say that a trigraph G is obtained by substitution from smaller trigraphs provided that there exist some trigraphs G 1 and G 2 with disjoint vertex sets satisfying V G1 < V G and V G2 < V G (or equivalently: V G1 2 and V G2 2) and some v V G1 that is not an endpoint of any semi-adjacent pair in G 1, such that G is obtained by substituting G 2 for v in G 1. We observe that a trigraph G admits a homogeneous set decomposition if and only if G is obtained from smaller trigraphs by substitution. We will use the following result several times in this paper Let G, G 1, G 2 be trigraphs and let v V G1. Assume that V G1 and V G2 are disjoint and that v is not an endpoint of any semi-adjacent pair in G 1. Assume that G is obtained by substituting G 2 for v in G 1. Then all of the following hold: 7

8 G is bull-free if and only if G 1 and G 2 are both bull-free; G is odd hole-free if and only if both G 1 and G 2 are odd hole-free; G is odd anti-hole-free if and only if both G 1 and G 2 are odd anti-holefree; G is Berge if and only if G 1 and G 2 are both Berge. Proof. This is an easy consequence of the fact that bulls, holes of length at least five, and anti-holes of length at least five do not admit a homogeneous set decomposition. Next, let G be a trigraph, and let A and B be non-empty, disjoint subsets of V G. We say that (A, B) is a homogeneous pair in G provided that A is a homogeneous set in G B, and B is a homogeneous set in G A. We observe that if (A, B) is a homogeneous pair in G, and uv is a semi-adjacent pair in G, then either u, v A B or u, v V G (A B). If (A, B) is a homogeneous pair in G, then the partition of G with respect to (or associated with) the homogeneous pair (A, B) is the 6-tuple (A, B, C, D, E, F ), where C is the set of all vertices in V G (A B) that are strongly complete to A and strongly anti-complete to B; D is the set of all vertices in V G (A B) that are strongly complete to B and strongly anti-complete to A; E is the set of all vertices in V G (A B) that are strongly complete to A B; and F is the set of all vertices in V G (A B) that are strongly anti-complete to A B. We say that a homogeneous pair (A, B) in a trigraph G is good provided that the following three conditions hold: neither G[A] nor G[B] contains a three-edge path; there does not exist a path v 1 v 2 v 3 v 4 in G such that v 1, v 4 A and v 2, v 3 B; there does not exist a path v 1 v 2 v 3 v 4 in G such that v 1, v 4 B and v 2, v 3 A. We observe that if (A, B) is a good homogeneous pair in a trigraph G, then (A, B) is a good homogeneous pair in G as well; this follows from the fact that the complement of a three-edge path is again a three-edge path. Good homogeneous pairs will appear in sections 4 and 6 below. We end this section with a useful result concerning good homogeneous pairs Let G be a trigraph, let (A, B) be a good homogeneous pair in G, and let W be the vertex set of an odd hole or an odd anti-hole in G. Then W A 1 and W B 1. 8

9 Proof. First, by passing to G if necessary, we may assume that W is the vertex set of an odd hole in G. Next, let Ĝ be a realization of G in which W is the vertex set of an odd hole. Finally, let (A, B, C, D, E, F ) be the partition of G with respect to (A, B). We begin by proving that W A B. Suppose otherwise. Since the number of edges in Ĝ[W ] with one endpoint in A and the other one in B is even, exactly one of Ĝ[W A] and Ĝ[W B] contains an odd number of edges; by symmetry, we may assume that Ĝ[B] contains an odd number of edges. Since Ĝ[W B] contains no induced three-edge path, and since Ĝ[W ] is a chordless cycle of length at least five, we know that Ĝ[W B] contains an edge b 1 b 2 that meets no other edges in Ĝ[W B]. Since Ĝ[W ] is a chordless cycle of length at least five, there exist some a 1, a 2 W such that a 1 b 1 b 2 a 2 is an induced three-edge path in Ĝ[W ] (and therefore in G[W ] as well). Since the edge b 1 b 2 meets no other edges in Ĝ[W B], we know that a 1, a 2 A. But then the path a 1 b 1 b 2 a 2 contradicts the fact that (A, B) is good. We next show that W A 2 and W B 2. Suppose otherwise. By symmetry, we may assume that W A 3. Then W (C E) =, for otherwise, some vertex in Ĝ[W ] would be of degree at least three. Since W A B, W intersects D F ; and since Ĝ[W ] is connected, W D. Now, fix some a W A and d W D. Note that there are two paths in Ĝ[W ] between a and d that meet only at their endpoints; both of these paths pass through B, and so W B 2. Fix distinct b 1, b 2 W B. Since B is complete to D in Ĝ, and since Ĝ[W ] is a chordless cycle of length at least five, it follows that W B = {b 1, b 2 } and W D = {d}. It then easily follows that W {d} A B. Then Ĝ[W A] is an odd path, and so since W A 3, we get that Ĝ[A] (and therefore G[A]) contains an induced three-edge path, contrary to the fact that (A, B) is good. Thus, W A 2 and W B 2. Finally, suppose that W A = 2; set W A = {a 1, a 2 }. Since Ĝ[W ] is a chordless cycle of length at least five, there exist some b 1, b 2 W {a 1, a 2 } such that a 1 b 1, a 2 b 2 are edges, and a 1 b 2, a 2 b 1 are non-edges in Ĝ. Since b 1 and b 2 are both mixed on A, it follows that b 1, b 2 B; since W B 2, this means that W B = {b 1, b 2 }. Since (A, B) is good, and since Ĝ[W ] contains no cycles of length four, we know that both a 1 a 2 and b 1 b 2 are non-edges. Note that W E =, for otherwise, some vertex in W would be of degree at least four in Ĝ[W ]. Thus, all neighbors of a 1 in Ĝ[W ] lie in C {b 1}; since a 1 has at least two neighbors in W, this means that W C. Similarly, W D. But if c W C and d W D, then c a 1 b 1 d b 2 a 2 c is a (not necessarily induced) cycle of length six in Ĝ[W ], which is impossible. Thus, W A 1. In an analogous way, we get that W B 1. This 9

10 completes the argument. 3 Structure Theorem for Bull-Free Berge Trigraphs Given a trigraph G, a set X V G, and a vertex p V G X, we say that p is a center for X (or for G[X]) provided that p is adjacent to each vertex in X, and we say that p is an anti-center for X (or for G[X]) provided that p is anti-adjacent to each vertex in X. Following [2], we call a bull-free trigraph G elementary provided that it contains no three-edge path P such that some vertex of G is a center for P, and some vertex of G is an anti-center for P. A bull-free trigraph that is not elementary is said to be non-elementary. We now state a decomposition theorem from [2] (this is 3.3 from [2]; we remark that not all terms from the statement of this theorem have been defined in the present paper) Let G be a non-elementary bull-free trigraph. Then at least one of the following holds: G or G belongs to T 0 ; G or G contains a homogeneous pair of type zero; G admits a homogeneous set decomposition. We omit the definitions of T 0 and of a homogeneous pair of type zero, and instead refer the reader to [2]. What we need here is the fact (easy to check) that every trigraph in T 0 contains a hole of length five, as does every trigraph that contains a homogeneous pair of type zero. Now 3.1 (i.e. 3.3 from [2]) implies that every non-elementary bull-free trigraph that does not contain a hole of length five (and in particular, every non-elementary bullfree Berge trigraph) admits a homogeneous set decomposition; we state this result below for future reference Every non-elementary bull-free trigrpaph that does not contain a hole of length five admits a homogeneous set decomposition. In particular, every non-elementary bull-free Berge trigraph admits a homogeneous set decomposition. While the proof of 3.3 from [2] (stated as 3.1 above) is relatively involved, if we restrict our attention to non-elementary bull-free trigraphs G that do not contain a hole of length five, only a couple of pages are needed to prove that G admits a homogeneous set decomposition (we refer the reader to the proof of 5.2 from [2]). We also remark that for the case of graphs (rather than trigraphs), a result analogous to 3.2 was originally proven in [11]. Recall that a trigraph G admits a homogeneous set decomposition if and only if it can be obtained from smaller trigraphs by substitution. Since the 10

11 class of bull-free Berge trigraphs is closed under substitution (by 2.2), we need only consider bull-free Berge trigraphs that do not admit a homogeneous set decomposition, and by 3.2, all such trigraphs are elementary. Thus, the rest of the paper deals with bull-free Berge trigraphs that are elementary. We now state the structure theorem for elementary bull-free trigraphs. (We note that some terms used in the statement of this theorem have not yet been defined.) The following is an immediate consequence of 6.1 and 5.5 from [5] Let G be an elementary bull-free trigraph that is not obtained from smaller bull-free trigraphs by substitution. Then at least one of the following holds: G or G is an elementary expansion of a member of T 1 ; G is an elementary expansion of a member of T 2. Conversely, if H is a trigraph such that either one of H and H is an elementary expansion of a member of T 1, or H is an elementary expansion of a trigraph in T 2, then H is an elementary bull-free trigraph. We note that some trigraphs H that satisfy the hypotheses of 3.3 admit a homogeneous set decomposition (that is, they can be obtained by substitution from smaller bull-free trigraphs). The definitions of classes T 1 and T 2, as well as of elementary expansions, are long and complicated, and we do not give them in this section. Instead, we give the definition of an elementary expansion of a trigraph in section 4; we prove there that if G is an elementary expansion of a trigraph H, then G is Berge if and only if H is. In section 5, we give the definition of the class T 1, and we derive the class T1 of all Berge trigraphs in T 1. In section 6, we give the definition of the class T 2, and we prove that every trigraph in T 2 is Berge. In section 7 (the final section), we put all of this together to derive the structure theorem for Berge bull-free trigraphs, which we state below Let G be a trigraph. Then G is bull-free and Berge if and only if at least one of the following holds: G is obtained from smaller bull-free Berge trigraphs by substitution; G or G is an elementary expansion of a trigraph in T 1 ; G is an elementary expansion of a trigraph in T 2. 11

12 4 Elementary Expansions Our goal in this section is to prove that if a trigraph G is an elementary expansion of a trigraph H, then G is Berge if and only if H is Berge. Informally, a trigraph G is said to be an elementary expansion of a trigraph H provided that G can be obtained by expanding some semi-adjacent pairs of a certain kind to homogeneous pairs of a corresponding kind. We start by defining the two kinds of semi-adjacent pair and the two kinds of homogeneous pair that we will need. After that, we define elementary expansions. Semi-adjacent pairs of type one and two. Let G be a trigraph, let (a, b) be a semi-adjacent pair in G, and let ({a}, {b}, C, D, E, F ) be the partition of G with respect to the homogeneous pair ({a}, {b}). We say that (a, b) is a semi-adjacent pair of type one provided all of the following hold: C, D, and F are non-empty; E is empty; neither C nor D is strongly anti-complete to F. We say that (a, b) is a semi-adjacent pair of type two provided all of the following hold: C, D, and F are non-empty; E is empty; C is not strongly anti-complete to F ; D is strongly anti-complete to F. Finally, a semi-adjacent pair (a, b) in a trigraph G is said to be of complement type one or of complement type two in G provided that (a, b) is a semiadjacent pair of complement type one or two, respectively, in G. Closures of rooted forests. We say that a trigraph T is a forest provided that there are neither triangles nor holes in T. (Thus, for any two vertices of T, there is at most one path between them.) A connected forest is called a tree. A rooted forest is a (k + 1)-tuple T = (T, r 1,..., r k ), where T is a forest with components T 1,..., T k such that r i V Ti for all i {1,..., k}. Given distinct u, v V T, we say that u is a descendant of v, or that v is an ancestor of u, provided that u, v V Ti for some i {1,..., k}, and that if P is the (unique) path from u to r i then v V P. We say that u and v are comparable in T provided that u is either an ancestor or a descendant of v. We say that u is a child of v, or that v is the parent of u, provided that u 12

13 and v are adjacent, and that u is a descendant of v. A vertex v V T is a leaf in T provided that v has no descendants. We say that the rooted forest T is good provided that for all semi-adjacent u, v V T, one of u and v is a leaf in T. Finally, we say that the trigraph T is the closure of the rooted forest T = (T, r 1,..., r k ) provided that: V T = V T ; for all distinct u, v V T, uv is an adjacent pair in T if and only if u and v are comparable in T; for all distinct u, v V T, uv is a semi-adjacent pair in T if and only if uv is a semi-adjacent pair in T. Homogeneous pairs of type one and two. A homogeneous pair (A, B) in a trigraph G is said to be of type one in G provided that the associated partition (A, B, C, D, E, F ) of G satisfies all of the following: (1) A is neither strongly complete nor strongly anti-complete to B; (2) 3 A B V G 3; (3) A and B are strongly stable sets; (4) C, D, and F are all non-empty; (5) E is empty; (6) neither C nor D is strongly anti-complete to F. A homogeneous pair (A, B) in a trigraph G is said to be of type two in G provided there exists a good rooted forest T = (T, r 1,..., r k ) such that the partition (A, B, C, D, E, F ) of G associated with (A, B) satisfies all of the following: (1) A is neither strongly complete nor strongly anti-complete to B; (2) 3 A B V G 3; (3) A is a strongly stable set; (4) G[B] is the closure of T; (5) if a A is adjacent to b B, then a is strongly adjacent to every descendant of b in T; (6) if all of the following hold: u, v B and u, v V Ti for some i {1,..., k}, u is a child of v in T, 13

14 P is the (unique) path in T i between r i and v, X is the component of T i (V P {v}) that contains u and v, Y is the set of vertices of X that are semi-adjacent to v, a A is adjacent to u and anti-adjacent to v; then a is strongly complete to Y and to B (V X V P ), and strongly anti-complete to V P {v}; (7) C, D, and F are all non-empty; (8) E is empty; (9) C is not strongly anti-complete to F ; (10) D is strongly anti-complete to F. We will need the following result Let G be a trigraph, and let (A, B) be a homogeneous pair of type one or two in one of G and G. Then (A, B) is a good homogeneous pair in G. Proof. Recall that (A, B) is a good homogeneous pair in G if and only if (A, B) is a good homogeneous pair in G. So we may assume that (A, B) is a homogeneous pair of type one or two in G. Now, we need to prove the following: neither G[A] nor G[B] contains a three-edge path; there does not exist a path v 1 v 2 v 3 v 4 in G such that v 1, v 4 A and v 2, v 3 B; there does not exist a path v 1 v 2 v 3 v 4 in G such that v 1, v 4 B and v 2, v 3 A. If (A, B) is a homogeneous pair of type one, then A and B are both stable, and the result is immediate. So assume that (A, B) is a homogeneous pair of type two. Then A is stable, and so G[A] contains no three-edge path. Furthermore, there is no path v 1 v 2 v 3 v 4 in G with v 1, v 4 B and v 2, v 3 A. Let T = (T, r 1,..., r k ) be a good rooted forest such that G[B] is the closure of T, as in the definition of a homogeneous pair of type two. Suppose that v 1 v 2 v 3 v 4 is a three-edge path in G[B]; then v 1, v 2, v 3, v 4 V Ti for some component T i of T. Since v 1 v 2 v 3 is a path, v 2 is comparable to both v 1 and v 3 in T, and either v 1 and v 3 are not comparable in T or there exist distinct i, j {1, 2} such that v i is a leaf in T and v i is a child of and is semi-adjacent to v j ; it then easily follows that v 2 is an ancestor of both v 1 and v 3. Similarly, since v 2 v 3 v 4 is a path, v 3 is an ancestor of both v 2 and v 4. But then v 2 is an ancestor of v 3, and v 3 is an 14

15 ancestor of v 2, which is impossible. Thus, G[B] contains no three-edge path. Suppose now that v 1 v 2 v 3 v 4 is a three-edge path in G with v 1, v 4 A and v 2, v 3 B. Then v 2 and v 3 are comparable in T; by symmetry, we may assume that v 3 is a descendant of v 2. But then the fact that v 1 is adjacent to v 2 implies that v 1 is strongly adjacent to v 3, which contradicts the fact that v 1 v 2 v 3 v 4 is a path. We now give the definition of an elementary expansion of a trigraph, and prove the main result of this section. Elementary expansions. Let H and G be trigraphs. We say that G is an elementary expansion of H provided that V G = v V H X v, where the X v s are non-empty and pairwise disjoint, and all of the following hold: (1) if u, v V H are strongly adjacent, then X u is strongly complete to X v ; (2) if u, v V H are strongly anti-adjacent, then X u is strongly anticomplete to X v ; (3) if v V H is not an endpoint of any semi-adjacent pair of type one or two, or of complement type one or two, then X v = 1; (4) if u, v V H are semi-adjacent, and neither (u, v) nor (v, u) is a semiadjacent pair of type one or two, or of complement type one or two, then the unique vertex of X u is semi-adjacent to the unique vertex of X v ; (5) if (u, v) is a semi-adjacent pair of type one or two in H, then either X u = X v = 1 and the unique vertex of X u is semi-adjacent to the unique vertex of X v, or (X u, X v ) is a homogeneous pair of type one or two, respectively, in G; (6) if (u, v) is a semi-adjacent pair of complement type one or two in H, then either X u = X v = 1 and the unique vertex of X u is semiadjacent to the unique vertex of X v, or (X u, X v ) is a homogeneous pair of type one or two, respectively, in G; Note that every trigraph is an elementary expansion of itself Let G and H be trigraphs, and assume that G is an elementary expansion of H. Then G is Berge if and only if H is Berge. Proof. The only if part follows from the fact that every realization of H is an induced subgraph of some realization of G. To prove the if part, we assume that H is Berge. Suppose that G is not Berge, and let W be the vertex set of an odd hole or an odd anti-hole in G. By 4.1 and 2.3, we have that W X v 1 for all v V H. But then {v V H W X v } is the vertex set of an odd hole or an odd anti-hole in H, which contradicts the assumption that H is Berge. 15

16 5 Class T 1 In this section, we state the definition of the class T 1 from [5], and we derive the class T1 of all Berge trigraphs in T 1. The section is organized as follows. We first define clique connectors and tulips. Clique connectors can conveniently be thought of as the basic building blocks of trigraphs in T 1 and T1. A clique connector consists of a bipartite trigraph and a strong clique that attaches to the bipartite trigraph in a certain specified way; a tulip is a special kind of clique connector. We next introduce trigraphs called tulip beds, which consist of a bipartite trigraph and an unlimited number of strong cliques that attach to the bipartite trigraph as partially overlapping tulips. We prove that each tulip bed is Berge (see 5.6). We then define melts (which are tulip beds and therefore Berge), and trigraphs that admit an H-structure for some usable graph H. The class T 1 is defined to be the collection of all melts and all trigraphs that admit an H-structure for some usable graph H. Finally, we define the subclass T1 of T 1, and to complete the section, we prove that every trigraph in T1 is a tulip bed (and therefore Berge), and that every Berge trigraph in T 1 is in T1. (However, we note that not every tulip bed is bull-free, and consequently, the class T1 is only a proper subclass of the class of all tulip beds.) Clique connectors. Let G be a trigraph such that V G = K A B C D, where K, A, B, C, and D are pairwise disjoint. Assume that K = {k 1,..., k t } is a strong clique, and that A, B, C, and D are strongly stable sets. Let A = t i=1 A i, B = t i=1 B i, C = t i=1 C i, and D = t i=1 D t, and assume that A 1,..., A t, B 1,..., B t, C 1,..., C t, D 1,..., D t are pairwise disjoint. Assume that for all i {1,..., t}, the following hold: (1) A i is strongly complete to {k 1,..., k i 1 }; (2) A i is complete to {k i }; (3) A i is strongly anti-complete to {k i+1,..., k t }; (4) B i is strongly complete to {k t i+2,..., k t }; (5) B i is complete to {k t i+1 }; (6) B i is strongly anti-complete to {k 1,..., k t i }. For each i {1,..., t}, let A i be the set of all vertices in A i that are semiadjacent to k i, and let B i be the set of all vertices in B i that are semi-adjacent to k t i+1 (thus, A i 1 and B i 1). Next, assume that: (7) if there exist some i, j {1,..., t} such that i + j t and A i is not strongly complete to B j, then K = A = B = 1, and the unique vertex of A is semi-adjacent to the unique vertex of B; 16

17 (8) for all i {1,..., t}, A i is strongly complete to B t i, B t i is strongly complete to A i, and the adjacency between A i A i and B t i B t i is arbitrary; (9) A K is strongly anti-complete to D, and B K is strongly anticomplete to C; (10) for all i {1,..., t}, C i is strongly complete to i 1 j=1 A j and strongly anti-complete to t j=i+1 A j; (11) for all i {1,..., t}, C i is strongly complete to A i, every vertex of C i has a neighbor in A i, and otherwise the adjacency between C i and A i A i is arbitrary; (12) for all i {1,..., t}, D i is strongly complete to i 1 j=1 B j and strongly anti-complete to t j=i+1 B j; (13) for all i {1,..., t}, D i is strongly complete to B i, every vertex of D i has a neighbor in B i, and otherwise the adjacency between D i and B i B i is arbitrary; (14) for all i, j {1,..., t}, if i + j > t then C i is strongly complete to D j, and otherwise the adjacency between C i and D j is arbitrary; (15) A t and B t are both non-empty. We then say that G is a (K, A, B, C, D)-clique connector. If for all i, j {1,..., t} such that i+j t we have that A i is strongly complete to B j, then we say that G is a non-degenerate (K, A, B, C, D)-clique connector; otherwise, we say that G is degenerate. If C and D are both empty, and for all i, j {1,..., t} such that i + j t we have that A i is strongly complete to B j, then we say that G is a (K, A, B)-tulip. We say that a trigraph G is a clique connector provided that there exist some K, A, B, C, D such that G is a (K, A, B, C, D)-clique connector; we say that G is a degenerate (respectively: non-degenerate) clique connector provided that there exist some K, A, B, C, D such that G is a degenerate (respectively: non-degenerate) (K, A, B, C, D)-clique connector. We say that G is a tulip if there exist some K, A, B such that G is a (K, A, B)-tulip. We observe that G is a (K, A, B, C, D)-clique connector if and only if G is a (K, B, A, D, C)-clique connector; similarly, G is a (K, A, B)-tulip if and only if G is a (K, B, A)-tulip; we will exploit this symmetry throughout the section. We also note that if G is a (K, A, B, C, D)-clique connector, then G[A B C D] is a bipartite trigraph with bipartition (A D, B C). Finally, we note that G is a (K, A, B)-tulip if and only if G is a non-degenerate (K, A, B,, )-clique connector. 17

18 All non-degenerate clique connectors (and therefore, all tulips) are Berge, as we will see in a slightly more general setting later in the section (see 5.6 and the comment after it). For now, we prove three results about clique connectors and tulips. The first (5.1) gives a necessary and sufficient condition for a degenerate clique connector to be Berge; the second (5.2) states that each Berge degenerate clique connector becomes non-degenerate after relabeling; and the third (5.3) is a technical lemma about tulips that will be used throughout this section Let G be a degenerate (K, A, B, C, D)-clique connector. Then G is Berge if and only if at least one of C and D is empty. Proof. Since G is degenerate, we can set K = {k 1 }, A = A 1 = {a}, and B = B 1 = {b}, with a and b semi-adjacent. Furthermore, by axiom (14) from the definition of a clique connector, we know that C is strongly complete to D. Now, for the only if part, we observe that if both C and D are non-empty with some c C and d D, then k 1 a c d b k 1 is an odd hole in G, and so G is not Berge. For the if part, suppose that at least one of C and D is empty. If both C and D are empty, then V G = 3 and G is Berge. So suppose that exactly one of C and D is empty; by symmetry, we may assume that C and D =. Now, we claim that C is a homogeneous set in G. First, we know by axiom (11) from the definition of a (K, A, B, C, D)-clique connector that every vertex in C has a neighbor in A; since A = {a} and a is semi-adjacent to b / C, it follows that C is strongly complete to A. Second, by axiom (9), we know that C is strongly anti-complete to K B. Thus, C is a homogeneous set in G, as claimed. Since K = A = B = 1, and since D =, it follows that G is obtained by substituting the trigraph G[C] for a vertex in a 4-vertex trigraph. G[C] is Berge because C is a strongly stable set in G, and clearly, every 4-vertex trigraph is Berge. By 2.2 then, G is Berge If G is a degenerate (K, A, B, C, )-clique connector, then G is a nondegenerate (B, A, K, C, )-clique connector, and if G is a degenerate (K, A, B,, D)-clique connector, then G is a non-degenerate (A, K, B,, D)-clique connector. Proof. This is immediate from the definition Let G be a (K, A, B)-tulip, and let p 1 p 2 p 3 p 4 be a path in G such that p 2, p 3 K. Then either p 1 A and p 4 B, or p 1 B and p 4 A. Proof. Since K is a strong clique, we know that p 1, p 4 / K; thus, p 1, p 4 A B. Now, suppose that neither of the stated outcomes holds. By symmetry then, we may assume that p 1, p 4 A. Set K = {k 1,..., k t } as in the definition of a tulip, and set p 2 = k i and p 3 = k j ; by symmetry, we may assume that i < j. Since p 4 is adjacent to p 3 = k j, we know that p 4 is strongly complete 18

19 to {k 1,..., k j 1 }, and so in particular, p 4 is strongly adjacent to p 2 = k i, which is a contradiction. Tulip beds. We say that a trigraph G is a tulip bed provided that either G is bipartite, or V G can be partitioned into (non-empty) sets F 1, F 2, Y 1,..., Y s (for some integer s 1) such that all of the following hold: (1) F 1 and F 2 are strongly stable sets; (2) Y 1,..., Y s are strong cliques, pairwise strongly anti-complete to each other; (3) for all v F 1 F 2, v has neighbors in at most two of Y 1,..., Y s ; (4) for all adjacent v 1 F 1 and v 2 F 2, v 1 and v 2 have common neighbors in at most one of Y 1,..., Y s ; (5) for all l {1,..., s}, if X l is the set of all vertices in F 1 F 2 with a neighbor in Y l, then G[Y l X l ] is a (Y l, X l F 1, X l F 2 )-tulip. As we stated at the beginning of this section, not all tulip beds are bull-free (for example, a bull that contains no semi-adjacent pairs is easily seen to be a tulip bed). However, all tulip beds are Berge, and we now turn to proving this fact. We begin with some technical lemmas Let G be a tulip bed, and let F 1, F 2, Y 1,..., Y s, X 1,..., X s be as in the definition of a tulip bed. Let v 1 F 1, v 2 F 2, and l {1,..., s}, and assume that v 1 and v 2 have a common neighbor in Y l. Then both of the following hold: v 1 v 2 is a strongly adjacent pair; v 1 and v 2 have no common anti-neighbor in Y l. Proof. Clearly, v 1, v 2 X l. Set K = Y l, A = X l F 1, and B = X l F 2. Now G[Y l X l ] is a (K, A, B)-tulip, v 1 A, v 2 B, and v 1 and v 2 have a common neighbor in K. Set K = {k 1,..., k t }, A = t i=1 A i, and B = t i=1 B i as in the definition of a (K, A, B)-tulip. Fix i {1,..., t} such that k i is a common neighbor of v 1 and v 2. Fix p, q {1,..., t} such that v 1 A p and v 2 B q. Since v 1 A p is adjacent to k i, we know by axioms (1), (2), and (3) from the definition of a (K, A, B)-tulip that i p; and since v 2 B q is adjacent to k i, we know by axioms (4), (5), and (6) that t q + 1 i. Thus, t q + 1 p, and so p + q t + 1. In particular, p + q t, and so A p is strongly complete to B q (this follows from the fact that tulips are non-degenerate clique connectors). Since v 1 A p and v 2 B q, it follows that v 1 v 2 is a strongly adjacent pair. It remains to show that v 1 and v 2 do not have a common anti-neighbor 19

20 in Y l. Suppose otherwise; fix j {1,..., t} such that k j is anti-adjacent to both v 1 and v 2. Since k j is anti-adjacent to v 1 A p, we know by axioms (1), (2), and (3) from the definition of a (K, A, B)-tulip that p j; and since k j is anti-adjacent to v 2 B q, we know by axioms (4), (5), and (6) that j t q + 1. But now p t q + 1, and so p + q t + 1. We showed before that p + q t + 1, and so it follows that p + q = t + 1, and consequently, that j = p = t q + 1. Since k j = k p is anti-adjacent to v 1 A p, axiom (2) from the definition of a (K, A, B)-tulip implies that k j is semi-adjacent to v 1 ; similarly, since k j = k t q+1 is anti-adjacent to v 2 B q, axiom (5) implies that k j is semi-adjacent to v 2. But now k j is semi-adjacent to both v 1 and v 2, which is impossible by the definition of a trigraph. We remark that a result very similar to 5.4 was proven in [3] (see the proof of 3.1, statements (1) and (3), from [3]) No tulip bed contains a three-edge path with a center. Proof. Let G be a tulip bed, and suppose that p 1 p 2 p 3 p 4 is a path with a center p c in G. Since G contains a triangle, G is not bipartite. Then let F 1, F 2, Y 1,..., Y s, X 1,..., X s be as in the definition of a tulip bed. Our first goal is to show that p c / F 1 F 2. Suppose otherwise. Since {p c, p 2, p 3 } is a triangle, we know that p 2 and p 3 cannot both lie in F 1 F 2 ; by symmetry, we may assume that p 2 / F 1 F 2 ; thus, p 2 Y l for some l {1,..., s}. We claim that p 3 Y l. Suppose otherwise. Since p 2 p 3 is an adjacent pair and the strong cliques Y 1,..., Y s are strongly anti-complete to each other, this means that p 3 F 1 F 2. Now, {p c, p 3, p 4 } is a triangle, and so p 4 / F 1 F 2. Since p c, p 3 F 1 F 2 are adjacent with a common neighbor p 2 Y l, axiom (4) from the definition of a tulip bed implies that all common neighbors of p c and p 3 lie in Y l, and so p 4 Y l. But then p 2, p 4 Y l, which is impossible since p 2 p 4 is an anti-adjacent pair and Y l is a strong clique. Thus, p 3 Y l. Now, p 2, p 3 Y l, Y l is a strong clique, and p 1 p 3 and p 2 p 4 are anti-adjacent pairs; thus, p 1, p 4 / Y l, and therefore, p 1, p 4 F 1 F 2. Clearly, p c, p 1, p 4 X l ; by symmetry, we may assume that p c X l F 1. Since p c is complete to {p 1, p 4 } and F 1 is strongly stable, it follows that p 1, p 4 X l F 2. But then the path p 1 p 2 p 3 p 4 contradicts 5.3. This proves that p c / F 1 F 2. Let l {1,..., s} be such that p c Y l. Since p c Y l is complete to {p 1, p 2, p 3, p 4 }, we know that p 1, p 2, p 3, p 4 Y l X l. Since p 1 p 4 is an antiadjacent pair, p 1 and p 4 cannot both lie in Y l ; by symmetry, we may assume that p 1 X l F 1. Since p 1 p 2 is an adjacent pair, there are two cases to consider: when p 2 Y l, and when p 2 X l F 2. Suppose first that p 2 Y l. Since p 2 p 4 is an anti-adjacent pair, this means that p 4 / Y l ; since p 1 p 4 is an anti-adjacent pair with a common neighbor in Y l, and since p 1 X l F 1, 5.4 implies that p 4 X l F 1. Since p 3 p 4 is an adjacent pair, we know that 20

21 p 3 / X l F 1 ; and since p 1 X l F 1 and p 3 are anti-adjacent with a common neighbor in Y l, we know by 5.4 that p 3 / X l F 2. Thus, p 3 Y l. But then the path p 1 p 2 p 3 p 4 contradicts 5.3. Thus, p 2 X l F 2. The fact that p 1 p 4 is an anti-adjacent pair with a common neighbor p c Y l, together with the fact that p 1 X l F 1, implies (by 5.4) that p 4 / X l F 2. Similarly, since p 2 p 4 is an anti-adjacent pair with a common neighbor p c Y l, and since p 2 X l F 2, we have that p 4 / X l F 1. Finally, since p 1 X l F 1 and p 2 X l F 2 have a common neighbor p c Y l, 5.4 implies that p 1 and p 2 have no common anti-neighbor in Y l, and so p 4 / Y l. But then p 4 / Y l X l, which is a contradiction Each tulip bed is Berge. Proof. Let G be a tulip bed. Since every anti-hole of length at least seven contains a three-edge path with a center, 5.5 implies that G contains no anti-hole of length at least seven. Since each anti-hole of length five is also a hole of length five, this reduces our problem to proving that G contains no odd holes. If G is bipartite, then the result is immediate; so assume that G is not bipartite. Now let F 1, F 2, Y 1,..., Y s, X 1,..., X s be as in the definition of a tulip bed. Suppose that w 0 w 1... w 2k w 0 (with indices in Z 2k+1 for some integer k 2) is an odd hole in G, and set W = {w 0, w 1,..., w 2k }. We will obtain a contradiction by showing that G[W ] is bipartite. Note that it suffices to show that for all l {1,..., s}, G[W (Y l F 1 F 2 )] is bipartite with some bipartition (F1 l, F 2 l) such that W F 1 F1 l and W F 2 F2 l, for then the fact that Y 1,..., Y s are pairwise strongly anti-complete to each other will imply that G[W ] is bipartite with bipartition ( s l=1 F 1 l, s l=1 F 2 l). We begin by showing that for all l {1,..., s} and i Z 2k+1 such that w i Y l, w i is strongly anti-complete to at least one of W F 1 and W F 2. Suppose otherwise. Fix some l {1,..., s} and i Z 2k+1 such that w i Y l, and w i has neighbors in both W F 1 and W F 2. First, note that w i is anti-complete to at least one of W F 1 and W F 2 ; indeed if there existed some i 1, i 2 Z 2k+1 such that w i1 W F 1, w i2 W F 2, and w i is strongly adjacent to both w i1 and w i2, then (by 5.4) w i1 and w i2 would be strongly adjacent, and {w i, w i1, w i2 } would be a strong triangle in G[W ], which is impossible. Now suppose that there exist some i 1, i 2 Z 2k+1 such that w i1 W F 1, w i2 W F 2, w i is adjacent to both w i1 and w i2 and semi-adjacent to one of them. By symmetry, we may assume that w i is strongly adjacent to w i1 and semi-adjacent to w i2 ; thus, w i is anti-complete to W F 2. Since w i1 F 1 and w i2 F 2 have a common neighbor w i Y l, 5.4 implies that w i1 w i2 is a strongly adjacent pair. Since w i w i1 and w i1 w i2 are strongly adjacent pairs, by symmetry, we may assume that w i1 = w i+1 and w i2 = w i+2. Since w i w i+2 is a semi-adjacent pair, w i 1 w i is a strongly 21

Claw-Free Graphs With Strongly Perfect Complements. Fractional and Integral Version.

Claw-Free Graphs With Strongly Perfect Complements. Fractional and Integral Version. Claw-Free Graphs With Strongly Perfect Complements. Fractional and Integral Version. Part I. Basic graphs Maria Chudnovsky Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research Columbia University,

More information

Coloring perfect graphs with no balanced skew-partitions

Coloring perfect graphs with no balanced skew-partitions Coloring perfect graphs with no balanced skew-partitions Maria Chudnovsky, Nicolas Trotignon, Théophile Trunck and Kristina Vušković May 15, 2012 Abstract We present an O(n 7 ) time algorithm that colors

More information

Coloring perfect graphs with no balanced skew-partitions

Coloring perfect graphs with no balanced skew-partitions Coloring perfect graphs with no balanced skew-partitions Maria Chudnovsky, Nicolas Trotignon, Théophile Trunck and Kristina Vušković August 29, 2013 Abstract We present an O(n 5 ) algorithm that computes

More information

Small Survey on Perfect Graphs

Small Survey on Perfect Graphs Small Survey on Perfect Graphs Michele Alberti ENS Lyon December 8, 2010 Abstract This is a small survey on the exciting world of Perfect Graphs. We will see when a graph is perfect and which are families

More information

Characterizations of graph classes by forbidden configurations

Characterizations of graph classes by forbidden configurations Characterizations of graph classes by forbidden configurations Zdeněk Dvořák September 14, 2015 We consider graph classes that can be described by excluding some fixed configurations. Let us give some

More information

arxiv: v3 [cs.dm] 15 Feb 2016

arxiv: v3 [cs.dm] 15 Feb 2016 Clique-Stable Set Separation in Perfect Graphs with no Balanced Skew-Partitions Aurélie Lagoutte a,, Théophile Trunck a a LIP, UMR 5668 ENS Lyon - CNRS - UCBL - INRIA, Université de Lyon, 46, allée de

More information

Bipartite Roots of Graphs

Bipartite Roots of Graphs Bipartite Roots of Graphs Lap Chi Lau Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Graph H is a root of graph G if there exists a positive integer k such that x and y are adjacent in G if and only

More information

Excluding induced subgraphs

Excluding induced subgraphs Excluding induced subgraphs Maria Chudnovsky and Paul Seymour Abstract 1 Introduction Given two graphs, G and H, we say that H is an induced subgraph of G if V (H) V (G), and two vertices of H are adjacent

More information

Excluding induced subgraphs

Excluding induced subgraphs Excluding induced subgraphs Maria Chudnovsky and Paul Seymour Abstract In this paper we survey some results concerning the structure and properties of families of graphs defined by excluding certain induced

More information

This article was originally published in a journal published by Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the author s benefit and for the benefit of the author s institution, for non-commercial

More information

Vertex coloring, chromatic number

Vertex coloring, chromatic number Vertex coloring, chromatic number A k-coloring of a graph G is a labeling f : V (G) S, where S = k. The labels are called colors; the vertices of one color form a color class. A k-coloring is proper if

More information

Fast Skew Partition Recognition

Fast Skew Partition Recognition Fast Skew Partition Recognition William S. Kennedy 1, and Bruce Reed 2, 1 Department of Mathematics and Statistics, McGill University, Montréal, Canada, H3A2K6 kennedy@math.mcgill.ca 2 School of Computer

More information

Abstract. A graph G is perfect if for every induced subgraph H of G, the chromatic number of H is equal to the size of the largest clique of H.

Abstract. A graph G is perfect if for every induced subgraph H of G, the chromatic number of H is equal to the size of the largest clique of H. Abstract We discuss a class of graphs called perfect graphs. After defining them and getting intuition with a few simple examples (and one less simple example), we present a proof of the Weak Perfect Graph

More information

Vertex coloring, chromatic number

Vertex coloring, chromatic number Vertex coloring, chromatic number A k-coloring of a graph G is a labeling f : V (G) S, where S = k. The labels are called colors; the vertices of one color form a color class. A k-coloring is proper if

More information

Math 170- Graph Theory Notes

Math 170- Graph Theory Notes 1 Math 170- Graph Theory Notes Michael Levet December 3, 2018 Notation: Let n be a positive integer. Denote [n] to be the set {1, 2,..., n}. So for example, [3] = {1, 2, 3}. To quote Bud Brown, Graph theory

More information

Graphs and Discrete Structures

Graphs and Discrete Structures Graphs and Discrete Structures Nicolas Bousquet Louis Esperet Fall 2018 Abstract Brief summary of the first and second course. É 1 Chromatic number, independence number and clique number The chromatic

More information

On the Relationships between Zero Forcing Numbers and Certain Graph Coverings

On the Relationships between Zero Forcing Numbers and Certain Graph Coverings On the Relationships between Zero Forcing Numbers and Certain Graph Coverings Fatemeh Alinaghipour Taklimi, Shaun Fallat 1,, Karen Meagher 2 Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Regina,

More information

A taste of perfect graphs (continued)

A taste of perfect graphs (continued) A taste of perfect graphs (continued) Recall two theorems from last class characterizing perfect graphs (and that we observed that the α ω theorem implied the Perfect Graph Theorem). Perfect Graph Theorem.

More information

Adjacent: Two distinct vertices u, v are adjacent if there is an edge with ends u, v. In this case we let uv denote such an edge.

Adjacent: Two distinct vertices u, v are adjacent if there is an edge with ends u, v. In this case we let uv denote such an edge. 1 Graph Basics What is a graph? Graph: a graph G consists of a set of vertices, denoted V (G), a set of edges, denoted E(G), and a relation called incidence so that each edge is incident with either one

More information

Treewidth and graph minors

Treewidth and graph minors Treewidth and graph minors Lectures 9 and 10, December 29, 2011, January 5, 2012 We shall touch upon the theory of Graph Minors by Robertson and Seymour. This theory gives a very general condition under

More information

Lecture 2 - Graph Theory Fundamentals - Reachability and Exploration 1

Lecture 2 - Graph Theory Fundamentals - Reachability and Exploration 1 CME 305: Discrete Mathematics and Algorithms Instructor: Professor Aaron Sidford (sidford@stanford.edu) January 11, 2018 Lecture 2 - Graph Theory Fundamentals - Reachability and Exploration 1 In this lecture

More information

Colouring graphs with no odd holes

Colouring graphs with no odd holes Colouring graphs with no odd holes Paul Seymour (Princeton) joint with Alex Scott (Oxford) 1 / 17 Chromatic number χ(g): minimum number of colours needed to colour G. 2 / 17 Chromatic number χ(g): minimum

More information

A graph is finite if its vertex set and edge set are finite. We call a graph with just one vertex trivial and all other graphs nontrivial.

A graph is finite if its vertex set and edge set are finite. We call a graph with just one vertex trivial and all other graphs nontrivial. 2301-670 Graph theory 1.1 What is a graph? 1 st semester 2550 1 1.1. What is a graph? 1.1.2. Definition. A graph G is a triple (V(G), E(G), ψ G ) consisting of V(G) of vertices, a set E(G), disjoint from

More information

The Encoding Complexity of Network Coding

The Encoding Complexity of Network Coding The Encoding Complexity of Network Coding Michael Langberg Alexander Sprintson Jehoshua Bruck California Institute of Technology Email: mikel,spalex,bruck @caltech.edu Abstract In the multicast network

More information

Vertex 3-colorability of claw-free graphs

Vertex 3-colorability of claw-free graphs Algorithmic Operations Research Vol.2 (27) 5 2 Vertex 3-colorability of claw-free graphs Marcin Kamiński a Vadim Lozin a a RUTCOR - Rutgers University Center for Operations Research, 64 Bartholomew Road,

More information

Graph Theory S 1 I 2 I 1 S 2 I 1 I 2

Graph Theory S 1 I 2 I 1 S 2 I 1 I 2 Graph Theory S I I S S I I S Graphs Definition A graph G is a pair consisting of a vertex set V (G), and an edge set E(G) ( ) V (G). x and y are the endpoints of edge e = {x, y}. They are called adjacent

More information

Skew partitions in perfect graphs

Skew partitions in perfect graphs Discrete Applied Mathematics 156 (2008) 1150 1156 www.elsevier.com/locate/dam Skew partitions in perfect graphs Bruce Reed a,b a McGill University, Montreal, Canada b CNRS, France Received 14 June 2005;

More information

Rigidity, connectivity and graph decompositions

Rigidity, connectivity and graph decompositions First Prev Next Last Rigidity, connectivity and graph decompositions Brigitte Servatius Herman Servatius Worcester Polytechnic Institute Page 1 of 100 First Prev Next Last Page 2 of 100 We say that a framework

More information

How many colors are needed to color a map?

How many colors are needed to color a map? How many colors are needed to color a map? Is 4 always enough? Two relevant concepts How many colors do we need to color a map so neighboring countries get different colors? Simplifying assumption (not

More information

Pebble Sets in Convex Polygons

Pebble Sets in Convex Polygons 2 1 Pebble Sets in Convex Polygons Kevin Iga, Randall Maddox June 15, 2005 Abstract Lukács and András posed the problem of showing the existence of a set of n 2 points in the interior of a convex n-gon

More information

MATH 350 GRAPH THEORY & COMBINATORICS. Contents

MATH 350 GRAPH THEORY & COMBINATORICS. Contents MATH 350 GRAPH THEORY & COMBINATORICS PROF. SERGEY NORIN, FALL 2013 Contents 1. Basic definitions 1 2. Connectivity 2 3. Trees 3 4. Spanning Trees 3 5. Shortest paths 4 6. Eulerian & Hamiltonian cycles

More information

Math 776 Graph Theory Lecture Note 1 Basic concepts

Math 776 Graph Theory Lecture Note 1 Basic concepts Math 776 Graph Theory Lecture Note 1 Basic concepts Lectured by Lincoln Lu Transcribed by Lincoln Lu Graph theory was founded by the great Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler (1707-178) after he solved

More information

FOUR EDGE-INDEPENDENT SPANNING TREES 1

FOUR EDGE-INDEPENDENT SPANNING TREES 1 FOUR EDGE-INDEPENDENT SPANNING TREES 1 Alexander Hoyer and Robin Thomas School of Mathematics Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0160, USA ABSTRACT We prove an ear-decomposition theorem

More information

Module 11. Directed Graphs. Contents

Module 11. Directed Graphs. Contents Module 11 Directed Graphs Contents 11.1 Basic concepts......................... 256 Underlying graph of a digraph................ 257 Out-degrees and in-degrees.................. 258 Isomorphism..........................

More information

CMSC Honors Discrete Mathematics

CMSC Honors Discrete Mathematics CMSC 27130 Honors Discrete Mathematics Lectures by Alexander Razborov Notes by Justin Lubin The University of Chicago, Autumn 2017 1 Contents I Number Theory 4 1 The Euclidean Algorithm 4 2 Mathematical

More information

arxiv: v1 [cs.dm] 30 Apr 2014

arxiv: v1 [cs.dm] 30 Apr 2014 The stable set polytope of (P 6,triangle)-free graphs and new facet-inducing graphs Raffaele Mosca arxiv:1404.7623v1 [cs.dm] 30 Apr 2014 May 1, 2014 Abstract The stable set polytope of a graph G, denoted

More information

DO NOT RE-DISTRIBUTE THIS SOLUTION FILE

DO NOT RE-DISTRIBUTE THIS SOLUTION FILE Professor Kindred Math 104, Graph Theory Homework 2 Solutions February 7, 2013 Introduction to Graph Theory, West Section 1.2: 26, 38, 42 Section 1.3: 14, 18 Section 2.1: 26, 29, 30 DO NOT RE-DISTRIBUTE

More information

Faster parameterized algorithms for Minimum Fill-In

Faster parameterized algorithms for Minimum Fill-In Faster parameterized algorithms for Minimum Fill-In Hans L. Bodlaender Pinar Heggernes Yngve Villanger Technical Report UU-CS-2008-042 December 2008 Department of Information and Computing Sciences Utrecht

More information

Recognizing Interval Bigraphs by Forbidden Patterns

Recognizing Interval Bigraphs by Forbidden Patterns Recognizing Interval Bigraphs by Forbidden Patterns Arash Rafiey Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada, and Indiana State University, IN, USA arashr@sfu.ca, arash.rafiey@indstate.edu Abstract Let

More information

arxiv: v1 [cs.ds] 14 Dec 2018

arxiv: v1 [cs.ds] 14 Dec 2018 Graph classes and forbidden patterns on three vertices Laurent Feuilloley 1,2,3 and Michel Habib 1,3 arxiv:1812.05913v1 [cs.ds] 14 Dec 2018 1 IRIF, UMR 8243 CNRS & Paris Diderot University, Paris, France

More information

CLAW-FREE 3-CONNECTED P 11 -FREE GRAPHS ARE HAMILTONIAN

CLAW-FREE 3-CONNECTED P 11 -FREE GRAPHS ARE HAMILTONIAN CLAW-FREE 3-CONNECTED P 11 -FREE GRAPHS ARE HAMILTONIAN TOMASZ LUCZAK AND FLORIAN PFENDER Abstract. We show that every 3-connected claw-free graph which contains no induced copy of P 11 is hamiltonian.

More information

CS473-Algorithms I. Lecture 13-A. Graphs. Cevdet Aykanat - Bilkent University Computer Engineering Department

CS473-Algorithms I. Lecture 13-A. Graphs. Cevdet Aykanat - Bilkent University Computer Engineering Department CS473-Algorithms I Lecture 3-A Graphs Graphs A directed graph (or digraph) G is a pair (V, E), where V is a finite set, and E is a binary relation on V The set V: Vertex set of G The set E: Edge set of

More information

Characterizing Graphs (3) Characterizing Graphs (1) Characterizing Graphs (2) Characterizing Graphs (4)

Characterizing Graphs (3) Characterizing Graphs (1) Characterizing Graphs (2) Characterizing Graphs (4) S-72.2420/T-79.5203 Basic Concepts 1 S-72.2420/T-79.5203 Basic Concepts 3 Characterizing Graphs (1) Characterizing Graphs (3) Characterizing a class G by a condition P means proving the equivalence G G

More information

Mock Exam. Juanjo Rué Discrete Mathematics II, Winter Deadline: 14th January 2014 (Tuesday) by 10:00, at the end of the lecture.

Mock Exam. Juanjo Rué Discrete Mathematics II, Winter Deadline: 14th January 2014 (Tuesday) by 10:00, at the end of the lecture. Mock Exam Juanjo Rué Discrete Mathematics II, Winter 2013-2014 Deadline: 14th January 2014 (Tuesday) by 10:00, at the end of the lecture. Problem 1 (2 points): 1. State the definition of perfect graph

More information

A Vizing-like theorem for union vertex-distinguishing edge coloring

A Vizing-like theorem for union vertex-distinguishing edge coloring A Vizing-like theorem for union vertex-distinguishing edge coloring Nicolas Bousquet, Antoine Dailly, Éric Duchêne, Hamamache Kheddouci, Aline Parreau Abstract We introduce a variant of the vertex-distinguishing

More information

arxiv: v1 [math.co] 7 Feb 2016

arxiv: v1 [math.co] 7 Feb 2016 A decomposition theorem for {ISK4,wheel}-free trigraphs arxiv:1602.02406v1 [math.co] 7 Feb 2016 Martin Milanič Irena Penev Nicolas Trotignon May 20, 2018 Abstract An ISK4 in a graph G is an induced subgraph

More information

Extremal Graph Theory: Turán s Theorem

Extremal Graph Theory: Turán s Theorem Bridgewater State University Virtual Commons - Bridgewater State University Honors Program Theses and Projects Undergraduate Honors Program 5-9-07 Extremal Graph Theory: Turán s Theorem Vincent Vascimini

More information

Chordal deletion is fixed-parameter tractable

Chordal deletion is fixed-parameter tractable Chordal deletion is fixed-parameter tractable Dániel Marx Institut für Informatik, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany. dmarx@informatik.hu-berlin.de Abstract. It

More information

Paths, Flowers and Vertex Cover

Paths, Flowers and Vertex Cover Paths, Flowers and Vertex Cover Venkatesh Raman M. S. Ramanujan Saket Saurabh Abstract It is well known that in a bipartite (and more generally in a König) graph, the size of the minimum vertex cover is

More information

Line Graphs and Circulants

Line Graphs and Circulants Line Graphs and Circulants Jason Brown and Richard Hoshino Department of Mathematics and Statistics Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 3J5 Abstract The line graph of G, denoted L(G),

More information

The strong chromatic number of a graph

The strong chromatic number of a graph The strong chromatic number of a graph Noga Alon Abstract It is shown that there is an absolute constant c with the following property: For any two graphs G 1 = (V, E 1 ) and G 2 = (V, E 2 ) on the same

More information

On Cyclically Orientable Graphs

On Cyclically Orientable Graphs DIMACS Technical Report 2005-08 February 2005 On Cyclically Orientable Graphs by Vladimir Gurvich RUTCOR, Rutgers University 640 Bartholomew Road Piscataway NJ 08854-8003 gurvich@rutcor.rutgers.edu DIMACS

More information

ON THE STRONGLY REGULAR GRAPH OF PARAMETERS

ON THE STRONGLY REGULAR GRAPH OF PARAMETERS ON THE STRONGLY REGULAR GRAPH OF PARAMETERS (99, 14, 1, 2) SUZY LOU AND MAX MURIN Abstract. In an attempt to find a strongly regular graph of parameters (99, 14, 1, 2) or to disprove its existence, we

More information

2 The Fractional Chromatic Gap

2 The Fractional Chromatic Gap C 1 11 2 The Fractional Chromatic Gap As previously noted, for any finite graph. This result follows from the strong duality of linear programs. Since there is no such duality result for infinite linear

More information

Problem Set 3. MATH 776, Fall 2009, Mohr. November 30, 2009

Problem Set 3. MATH 776, Fall 2009, Mohr. November 30, 2009 Problem Set 3 MATH 776, Fall 009, Mohr November 30, 009 1 Problem Proposition 1.1. Adding a new edge to a maximal planar graph of order at least 6 always produces both a T K 5 and a T K 3,3 subgraph. Proof.

More information

Faster parameterized algorithms for Minimum Fill-In

Faster parameterized algorithms for Minimum Fill-In Faster parameterized algorithms for Minimum Fill-In Hans L. Bodlaender Pinar Heggernes Yngve Villanger Abstract We present two parameterized algorithms for the Minimum Fill-In problem, also known as Chordal

More information

On vertex types of graphs

On vertex types of graphs On vertex types of graphs arxiv:1705.09540v1 [math.co] 26 May 2017 Pu Qiao, Xingzhi Zhan Department of Mathematics, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200241, China Abstract The vertices of a graph

More information

arxiv: v4 [math.co] 4 Apr 2011

arxiv: v4 [math.co] 4 Apr 2011 Upper-critical graphs (complete k-partite graphs) José Antonio Martín H. Faculty of Computer Science, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain arxiv:1011.4124v4 [math.co] 4 Apr 2011 Abstract This work introduces

More information

Discharging and reducible configurations

Discharging and reducible configurations Discharging and reducible configurations Zdeněk Dvořák March 24, 2018 Suppose we want to show that graphs from some hereditary class G are k- colorable. Clearly, we can restrict our attention to graphs

More information

MAT 145: PROBLEM SET 6

MAT 145: PROBLEM SET 6 MAT 145: PROBLEM SET 6 DUE TO FRIDAY MAR 8 Abstract. This problem set corresponds to the eighth week of the Combinatorics Course in the Winter Quarter 2019. It was posted online on Friday Mar 1 and is

More information

Assignment 4 Solutions of graph problems

Assignment 4 Solutions of graph problems Assignment 4 Solutions of graph problems 1. Let us assume that G is not a cycle. Consider the maximal path in the graph. Let the end points of the path be denoted as v 1, v k respectively. If either of

More information

Partitions and Packings of Complete Geometric Graphs with Plane Spanning Double Stars and Paths

Partitions and Packings of Complete Geometric Graphs with Plane Spanning Double Stars and Paths Partitions and Packings of Complete Geometric Graphs with Plane Spanning Double Stars and Paths Master Thesis Patrick Schnider July 25, 2015 Advisors: Prof. Dr. Emo Welzl, Manuel Wettstein Department of

More information

K 4 C 5. Figure 4.5: Some well known family of graphs

K 4 C 5. Figure 4.5: Some well known family of graphs 08 CHAPTER. TOPICS IN CLASSICAL GRAPH THEORY K, K K K, K K, K K, K C C C C 6 6 P P P P P. Graph Operations Figure.: Some well known family of graphs A graph Y = (V,E ) is said to be a subgraph of a graph

More information

ON VERTEX b-critical TREES. Mostafa Blidia, Noureddine Ikhlef Eschouf, and Frédéric Maffray

ON VERTEX b-critical TREES. Mostafa Blidia, Noureddine Ikhlef Eschouf, and Frédéric Maffray Opuscula Math. 33, no. 1 (2013), 19 28 http://dx.doi.org/10.7494/opmath.2013.33.1.19 Opuscula Mathematica ON VERTEX b-critical TREES Mostafa Blidia, Noureddine Ikhlef Eschouf, and Frédéric Maffray Communicated

More information

Ma/CS 6b Class 5: Graph Connectivity

Ma/CS 6b Class 5: Graph Connectivity Ma/CS 6b Class 5: Graph Connectivity By Adam Sheffer Communications Network We are given a set of routers and wish to connect pairs of them to obtain a connected communications network. The network should

More information

Edge Colorings of Complete Multipartite Graphs Forbidding Rainbow Cycles

Edge Colorings of Complete Multipartite Graphs Forbidding Rainbow Cycles Theory and Applications of Graphs Volume 4 Issue 2 Article 2 November 2017 Edge Colorings of Complete Multipartite Graphs Forbidding Rainbow Cycles Peter Johnson johnspd@auburn.edu Andrew Owens Auburn

More information

Vertex-Colouring Edge-Weightings

Vertex-Colouring Edge-Weightings Vertex-Colouring Edge-Weightings L. Addario-Berry a, K. Dalal a, C. McDiarmid b, B. A. Reed a and A. Thomason c a School of Computer Science, McGill University, University St. Montreal, QC, H3A A7, Canada

More information

Matching Algorithms. Proof. If a bipartite graph has a perfect matching, then it is easy to see that the right hand side is a necessary condition.

Matching Algorithms. Proof. If a bipartite graph has a perfect matching, then it is easy to see that the right hand side is a necessary condition. 18.433 Combinatorial Optimization Matching Algorithms September 9,14,16 Lecturer: Santosh Vempala Given a graph G = (V, E), a matching M is a set of edges with the property that no two of the edges have

More information

5 Matchings in Bipartite Graphs and Their Applications

5 Matchings in Bipartite Graphs and Their Applications 5 Matchings in Bipartite Graphs and Their Applications 5.1 Matchings Definition 5.1 A matching M in a graph G is a set of edges of G, none of which is a loop, such that no two edges in M have a common

More information

A generalization of Mader s theorem

A generalization of Mader s theorem A generalization of Mader s theorem Ajit A. Diwan Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay Mumbai, 4000076, India. email: aad@cse.iitb.ac.in 18 June 2007 Abstract

More information

Weak Dynamic Coloring of Planar Graphs

Weak Dynamic Coloring of Planar Graphs Weak Dynamic Coloring of Planar Graphs Caroline Accurso 1,5, Vitaliy Chernyshov 2,5, Leaha Hand 3,5, Sogol Jahanbekam 2,4,5, and Paul Wenger 2 Abstract The k-weak-dynamic number of a graph G is the smallest

More information

Coloring edges and vertices of graphs without short or long cycles

Coloring edges and vertices of graphs without short or long cycles Coloring edges and vertices of graphs without short or long cycles Marcin Kamiński and Vadim Lozin Abstract Vertex and edge colorability are two graph problems that are NPhard in general. We show that

More information

COLORING EDGES AND VERTICES OF GRAPHS WITHOUT SHORT OR LONG CYCLES

COLORING EDGES AND VERTICES OF GRAPHS WITHOUT SHORT OR LONG CYCLES Volume 2, Number 1, Pages 61 66 ISSN 1715-0868 COLORING EDGES AND VERTICES OF GRAPHS WITHOUT SHORT OR LONG CYCLES MARCIN KAMIŃSKI AND VADIM LOZIN Abstract. Vertex and edge colorability are two graph problems

More information

2. Lecture notes on non-bipartite matching

2. Lecture notes on non-bipartite matching Massachusetts Institute of Technology 18.433: Combinatorial Optimization Michel X. Goemans February 15th, 013. Lecture notes on non-bipartite matching Given a graph G = (V, E), we are interested in finding

More information

Number Theory and Graph Theory

Number Theory and Graph Theory 1 Number Theory and Graph Theory Chapter 6 Basic concepts and definitions of graph theory By A. Satyanarayana Reddy Department of Mathematics Shiv Nadar University Uttar Pradesh, India E-mail: satya8118@gmail.com

More information

On Sequential Topogenic Graphs

On Sequential Topogenic Graphs Int. J. Contemp. Math. Sciences, Vol. 5, 2010, no. 36, 1799-1805 On Sequential Topogenic Graphs Bindhu K. Thomas, K. A. Germina and Jisha Elizabath Joy Research Center & PG Department of Mathematics Mary

More information

if for every induced subgraph H of G the chromatic number of H is equal to the largest size of a clique in H. The triangulated graphs constitute a wid

if for every induced subgraph H of G the chromatic number of H is equal to the largest size of a clique in H. The triangulated graphs constitute a wid Slightly Triangulated Graphs Are Perfect Frederic Maire e-mail : frm@ccr.jussieu.fr Case 189 Equipe Combinatoire Universite Paris 6, France December 21, 1995 Abstract A graph is triangulated if it has

More information

Packing Edge-Disjoint Triangles in Given Graphs

Packing Edge-Disjoint Triangles in Given Graphs Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 13 (01) Packing Edge-Disjoint Triangles in Given Graphs Tomás Feder Carlos Subi Abstract Given a graph G, we consider the problem of finding

More information

Math 778S Spectral Graph Theory Handout #2: Basic graph theory

Math 778S Spectral Graph Theory Handout #2: Basic graph theory Math 778S Spectral Graph Theory Handout #: Basic graph theory Graph theory was founded by the great Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler (1707-178) after he solved the Königsberg Bridge problem: Is it possible

More information

THREE LECTURES ON BASIC TOPOLOGY. 1. Basic notions.

THREE LECTURES ON BASIC TOPOLOGY. 1. Basic notions. THREE LECTURES ON BASIC TOPOLOGY PHILIP FOTH 1. Basic notions. Let X be a set. To make a topological space out of X, one must specify a collection T of subsets of X, which are said to be open subsets of

More information

Some new results on circle graphs. Guillermo Durán 1

Some new results on circle graphs. Guillermo Durán 1 Some new results on circle graphs Guillermo Durán 1 Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial, Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile gduran@dii.uchile.cl Departamento

More information

Fully dynamic algorithm for recognition and modular decomposition of permutation graphs

Fully dynamic algorithm for recognition and modular decomposition of permutation graphs Fully dynamic algorithm for recognition and modular decomposition of permutation graphs Christophe Crespelle Christophe Paul CNRS - Département Informatique, LIRMM, Montpellier {crespell,paul}@lirmm.fr

More information

Lecture Notes on Graph Theory

Lecture Notes on Graph Theory Lecture Notes on Graph Theory Vadim Lozin 1 Introductory concepts A graph G = (V, E) consists of two finite sets V and E. The elements of V are called the vertices and the elements of E the edges of G.

More information

Theorem 3.1 (Berge) A matching M in G is maximum if and only if there is no M- augmenting path.

Theorem 3.1 (Berge) A matching M in G is maximum if and only if there is no M- augmenting path. 3 Matchings Hall s Theorem Matching: A matching in G is a subset M E(G) so that no edge in M is a loop, and no two edges in M are incident with a common vertex. A matching M is maximal if there is no matching

More information

Module 7. Independent sets, coverings. and matchings. Contents

Module 7. Independent sets, coverings. and matchings. Contents Module 7 Independent sets, coverings Contents and matchings 7.1 Introduction.......................... 152 7.2 Independent sets and coverings: basic equations..... 152 7.3 Matchings in bipartite graphs................

More information

Section 3.1: Nonseparable Graphs Cut vertex of a connected graph G: A vertex x G such that G x is not connected. Theorem 3.1, p. 57: Every connected

Section 3.1: Nonseparable Graphs Cut vertex of a connected graph G: A vertex x G such that G x is not connected. Theorem 3.1, p. 57: Every connected Section 3.1: Nonseparable Graphs Cut vertex of a connected graph G: A vertex x G such that G x is not connected. Theorem 3.1, p. 57: Every connected graph G with at least 2 vertices contains at least 2

More information

MATH 682 Notes Combinatorics and Graph Theory II

MATH 682 Notes Combinatorics and Graph Theory II 1 Matchings A popular question to be asked on graphs, if graphs represent some sort of compatability or association, is how to associate as many vertices as possible into well-matched pairs. It is to this

More information

by conservation of flow, hence the cancelation. Similarly, we have

by conservation of flow, hence the cancelation. Similarly, we have Chapter 13: Network Flows and Applications Network: directed graph with source S and target T. Non-negative edge weights represent capacities. Assume no edges into S or out of T. (If necessary, we can

More information

Advanced Combinatorial Optimization September 17, Lecture 3. Sketch some results regarding ear-decompositions and factor-critical graphs.

Advanced Combinatorial Optimization September 17, Lecture 3. Sketch some results regarding ear-decompositions and factor-critical graphs. 18.438 Advanced Combinatorial Optimization September 17, 2009 Lecturer: Michel X. Goemans Lecture 3 Scribe: Aleksander Madry ( Based on notes by Robert Kleinberg and Dan Stratila.) In this lecture, we

More information

arxiv: v1 [cs.dm] 13 Apr 2012

arxiv: v1 [cs.dm] 13 Apr 2012 A Kuratowski-Type Theorem for Planarity of Partially Embedded Graphs Vít Jelínek, Jan Kratochvíl, Ignaz Rutter arxiv:1204.2915v1 [cs.dm] 13 Apr 2012 Abstract A partially embedded graph (or Peg) is a triple

More information

Problem Set 2 Solutions

Problem Set 2 Solutions Problem Set 2 Solutions Graph Theory 2016 EPFL Frank de Zeeuw & Claudiu Valculescu 1. Prove that the following statements about a graph G are equivalent. - G is a tree; - G is minimally connected (it is

More information

Decreasing the Diameter of Bounded Degree Graphs

Decreasing the Diameter of Bounded Degree Graphs Decreasing the Diameter of Bounded Degree Graphs Noga Alon András Gyárfás Miklós Ruszinkó February, 00 To the memory of Paul Erdős Abstract Let f d (G) denote the minimum number of edges that have to be

More information

6. Lecture notes on matroid intersection

6. Lecture notes on matroid intersection Massachusetts Institute of Technology 18.453: Combinatorial Optimization Michel X. Goemans May 2, 2017 6. Lecture notes on matroid intersection One nice feature about matroids is that a simple greedy algorithm

More information

Star Decompositions of the Complete Split Graph

Star Decompositions of the Complete Split Graph University of Dayton ecommons Honors Theses University Honors Program 4-016 Star Decompositions of the Complete Split Graph Adam C. Volk Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/uhp_theses

More information

Lecture 19 Thursday, March 29. Examples of isomorphic, and non-isomorphic graphs will be given in class.

Lecture 19 Thursday, March 29. Examples of isomorphic, and non-isomorphic graphs will be given in class. CIS 160 - Spring 2018 (instructor Val Tannen) Lecture 19 Thursday, March 29 GRAPH THEORY Graph isomorphism Definition 19.1 Two graphs G 1 = (V 1, E 1 ) and G 2 = (V 2, E 2 ) are isomorphic, write G 1 G

More information

Graph Connectivity G G G

Graph Connectivity G G G Graph Connectivity 1 Introduction We have seen that trees are minimally connected graphs, i.e., deleting any edge of the tree gives us a disconnected graph. What makes trees so susceptible to edge deletions?

More information

Two Characterizations of Hypercubes

Two Characterizations of Hypercubes Two Characterizations of Hypercubes Juhani Nieminen, Matti Peltola and Pasi Ruotsalainen Department of Mathematics, University of Oulu University of Oulu, Faculty of Technology, Mathematics Division, P.O.

More information

The External Network Problem

The External Network Problem The External Network Problem Jan van den Heuvel and Matthew Johnson CDAM Research Report LSE-CDAM-2004-15 December 2004 Abstract The connectivity of a communications network can often be enhanced if the

More information

CHAPTER 2. Graphs. 1. Introduction to Graphs and Graph Isomorphism

CHAPTER 2. Graphs. 1. Introduction to Graphs and Graph Isomorphism CHAPTER 2 Graphs 1. Introduction to Graphs and Graph Isomorphism 1.1. The Graph Menagerie. Definition 1.1.1. A simple graph G = (V, E) consists of a set V of vertices and a set E of edges, represented

More information

Constructions of k-critical P 5 -free graphs

Constructions of k-critical P 5 -free graphs 1 2 Constructions of k-critical P 5 -free graphs Chính T. Hoàng Brian Moore Daniel Recoskie Joe Sawada Martin Vatshelle 3 January 2, 2013 4 5 6 7 8 Abstract With respect to a class C of graphs, a graph

More information